Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398179FA07F for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:22:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09151-01 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:21:58 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.228]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3855A9FA306 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:22:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id r21so530257wxc for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:22:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TeGaLgVoW5t9x9VppQemFk4OTGI5D8asr1Ya0ZRfzpw=; b=sxWf9NYA2F4oZqrtn1sDrhgZxyXTydYAp1Wd+KxMfvCFuxkzNe3mMXZ30JuStJe1hv1+FvSsGEMhSUnp8TCQdDajGJMMTrb930SUn769unTYBfV2z+Auh+q95YND03YZ4dMZ091+vRq53nu+M8I8EljfwApGnKhpyufRxqRIXjo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=NI3zEZAgFhutpq9HQ9mFT1N3L3cPpS1UMx2q3dlPl31QXlYYwOUONc8c++iYyg4td2ULKk5D8N3KGPwioThWC+Tem/joektI9hWoihHY2Oyc9nzmLXLPBfduHbyi80dHpbg5HV4Beo5T4cpLO+Dp32fuUIlqbeDA/2HiArzr5tQ= Received: by 10.90.69.8 with SMTP id r8mr2102887aga.1190334121870; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.3.150? ( [68.79.189.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm213242agd.2007.09.20.17.22.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Linux mis-reporting memory From: Adam Tauno Williams Reply-To: adamtaunowilliams@gmail.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20070920230400.GM95343@decibel.org> References: <20070920230400.GM95343@decibel.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:22:36 -0400 Message-Id: <1190334156.6835.1.camel@aleph.wmmi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/344 X-Sequence-Number: 26889 > Sorry, I know this is probably more a linux question, but I'm guessing > that others have run into this... > I'm finding this rather interesting report from top on a Debian box... > Mem: 32945280k total, 32871832k used, 73448k free, 247432k buffers > Swap: 1951888k total, 42308k used, 1909580k free, 30294300k cached > This is a machine that's been up some time and the database is 400G, so > I'm pretty confident that shared_buffers (set to 8G) should be > completely full, and that's what that top process is indicating. Nope, use "ipcs" to show allocated shared memory segments. One of the better articles on LINUX & memory management - http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006/02/understanding-memory-usage-on-linux.html -- Adam Tauno Williams, Network & Systems Administrator Consultant - http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com Developer - http://www.opengroupware.org